If we want to avoid mass extinctions and preserve the ecosystems all plants and animals depend on, governments should protect a third of the oceans and land by 2030 and half by 2050, with a focus on areas of high biodiversity. So say leading biologists in an editorial in the journal Science this week.

It’s not just about saving wildlife, says Jonathan Baillie of the National Geographic Society, one of the authors. It’s also about saving ourselves.

“We are learning more and more that the large areas that remain are important for providing services for all life,” he says. “The forests, for example, are critical for absorbing and storing carbon.”

At present, just 3.6 per cent of the planet’s oceans and 14.7 per cent of the land is protected by law. At the 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, governments agreed to protect 10 per cent of the oceans and 17 per cent of land.

Extinction crisis

But this isn’t nearly enough, says Baillie. He and his coauthor, Ya-Ping Zhang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, want governments to set much bigger targets at the next major conference in 2020.

“We have to drastically increase our ambition if we want to avoid an extinction crisis and if we want to maintain the ecosystem services that we currently benefit from,” says Baillie. “The trends are in a positive direction, it’s just we have to move much faster.”

It’s very difficult to work out how much space is needed to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem benefits, the pair say, because there’s so much we don’t know about life on Earth – like how many species there are. However, most estimates suggest that between 25 and 75 per cent of regions or major ecosystems must be protected. And we should err on the side of caution when setting targets.

Could we feed a global population that may reach 10 billion people by 2050 if half the planet is set aside? We won’t be able to do so if we don’t, says Baillie. “That’s why we need an intact planet,” he says. “If we want to feed the world’s population, we have to be thinking about maintaining the ecological systems that allow us to provide that.”

Which areas should we protect?

“There is no doubt we need far more land and sea secured for conserving and retaining nature,” says James Watson at the University of Queensland in St Lucia, Australia. “Targets like 50 per cent are in the right ball park when it comes to the minimal amount of area needed to conserve biodiversity.”

But Watson and others stress that which areas get protected is even more important than the overall number.

“The key thing is to protect the right areas,” says Jose Montoya of the Station for Theoretical and Experimental Ecology in Moulis, France. “If we merely protect a proportion of the territory, governments will likely protect what’s easy, and that’s usually areas of low biodiversity and ecosystem service provision.”

“We have to do both,” responds Baillie. “I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.”

What’s more, a third of the 3.6 per cent of land that is already meant to be protected is actually being exploited, Watson’s team reported last month. So merely declaring areas to be protected is not enough.

“These protected areas must be well managed,” says David Lindenmayer of the Australian National University in Canberra. “The basis for conservation will need to change so that it becomes a key part of economies and livelihoods.”

This is so obvious and so TRUE... I despair . I have been a 'conservationist ' for most of my life, but it's only been in the last 20 years that I have been able to act.

I have done this by holding land that boasts ( ) an incredible diversity, but the forces that have devastated this planet so far have NOT been decreasing, they have been INCREASING.!This is clearly anti-life behaviour.

mothra wrote:Half the planet should be set aside for wildlife – to save ourselves

If we want to avoid mass extinctions and preserve the ecosystems all plants and animals depend on, governments should protect a third of the oceans and land by 2030 and half by 2050, with a focus on areas of high biodiversity. So say leading biologists in an editorial in the journal Science this week.

It’s not just about saving wildlife, says Jonathan Baillie of the National Geographic Society, one of the authors. It’s also about saving ourselves.

“We are learning more and more that the large areas that remain are important for providing services for all life,” he says. “The forests, for example, are critical for absorbing and storing carbon.”

At present, just 3.6 per cent of the planet’s oceans and 14.7 per cent of the land is protected by law. At the 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, governments agreed to protect 10 per cent of the oceans and 17 per cent of land.

Extinction crisis

But this isn’t nearly enough, says Baillie. He and his coauthor, Ya-Ping Zhang of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, want governments to set much bigger targets at the next major conference in 2020.

“We have to drastically increase our ambition if we want to avoid an extinction crisis and if we want to maintain the ecosystem services that we currently benefit from,” says Baillie. “The trends are in a positive direction, it’s just we have to move much faster.”

It’s very difficult to work out how much space is needed to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem benefits, the pair say, because there’s so much we don’t know about life on Earth – like how many species there are. However, most estimates suggest that between 25 and 75 per cent of regions or major ecosystems must be protected. And we should err on the side of caution when setting targets.

Could we feed a global population that may reach 10 billion people by 2050 if half the planet is set aside? We won’t be able to do so if we don’t, says Baillie. “That’s why we need an intact planet,” he says. “If we want to feed the world’s population, we have to be thinking about maintaining the ecological systems that allow us to provide that.”

Which areas should we protect?

“There is no doubt we need far more land and sea secured for conserving and retaining nature,” says James Watson at the University of Queensland in St Lucia, Australia. “Targets like 50 per cent are in the right ball park when it comes to the minimal amount of area needed to conserve biodiversity.”

But Watson and others stress that which areas get protected is even more important than the overall number.

“The key thing is to protect the right areas,” says Jose Montoya of the Station for Theoretical and Experimental Ecology in Moulis, France. “If we merely protect a proportion of the territory, governments will likely protect what’s easy, and that’s usually areas of low biodiversity and ecosystem service provision.”

“We have to do both,” responds Baillie. “I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.”

What’s more, a third of the 3.6 per cent of land that is already meant to be protected is actually being exploited, Watson’s team reported last month. So merely declaring areas to be protected is not enough.

“These protected areas must be well managed,” says David Lindenmayer of the Australian National University in Canberra. “The basis for conservation will need to change so that it becomes a key part of economies and livelihoods.”

pinkeye wrote:This is so obvious and so TRUE... I despair . I have been a 'conservationist ' for most of my life, but it's only been in the last 20 years that I have been able to act.

I have done this by holding land that boasts ( ) an incredible diversity, but the forces that have devastated this planet so far have NOT been decreasing, they have been INCREASING.!This is clearly anti-life behaviour.

The national parks we have now are just lines on a map. There is no management and they become havens for weeds and feral animals.

Better is wildlife corridors and managing the parks we have now.

Are you saying that if we put a global freeze on the decimation of old growth forest, they would be overtaken with weeds?

I am saying that just putting land aside is the beginning, not the end.

So, 'land corridors' could be defined as 'better planned national parks', perhaps?

One of the reasons I chose my land was that it contained a permanent creek on it's western , and broadest, boundary. A creek which constitutes part of the catchment for a major river in my region.

A creek which IS what is known as a RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. Certainly one of the necessary 'corridor's for the survival of wildlife. It connects places which aren't covered in development.

In my part of the world many PRIVATE individuals like myself have undertaken and committed to improving, if poss , the land held and it's surroundings. ! So you can like it or not... many people are acting, on their own. OH YEAH have to thank my Local Council for all their support in promoting... LAND for WILDLIFE.!

if it weren't for encroaching developments and invasive vectors of all kinds thereby brought in to the area, basic maintenance is all that would be required.

If the native ecology didn't have to deal with the outcomes from human input, most things would be working just fine.

To say that National Parks require management is obvious. I don't see the issue really, because every protected piece of land is worth all the effort required to maintain it in it's natural state. IE.. without the benefits of western civilisation.

We encroach on and change the ecology, we are responsible for conserving that which we have harmed.

The national parks we have now are just lines on a map. There is no management and they become havens for weeds and feral animals.

Better is wildlife corridors and managing the parks we have now.

Are you saying that if we put a global freeze on the decimation of old growth forest, they would be overtaken with weeds?

I am saying that just putting land aside is the beginning, not the end.

So, 'land corridors' could be defined as 'better planned national parks', perhaps?

One of the reasons I chose my land was that it contained a permanent creek on it's western , and broadest, boundary. A creek which constitutes part of the catchment for a major river in my region.

A creek which IS what is known as a RIPARIAN CORRIDOR. Certainly one of the necessary 'corridor's for the survival of wildlife. It connects places which aren't covered in development.

In my part of the world many PRIVATE individuals like myself have undertaken and committed to improving, if poss , the land held and it's surroundings. ! So you can like it or not... many people are acting, on their own. OH YEAH have to thank my Local Council for all their support in promoting... LAND for WILDLIFE.!

I'm not disliking what you or hbs guy are saying at all: my auntie just moved to Tassie and it's awesome sauce.

(..it would seem you don't live in Tassie but I think hbs guy does..!?!?)

Everyones family has connection to the land: I applaud your willingness to keep it healthy within your abilities as well as enjoying it at the same time.

Even though I am a city person I do care: even if I don't know it/the land too well,.. which is obviously the basic problem.

Apparently us backyard gardeners have a greatly beneficial effect on the fauna in Australia.I am sure there are many people like Pinkeye, myself and HBS who are managing their own yards in ways that helps the local environment.

One of our Eprapah Wattles has already got many ladybirds on it. Last year it had many, this year it'll probably have many more.

I live in Adelaide, own a block in Tassie, hope to build my strawbale house there in 2-3 years.

Re wildlife, fine except I will protect my fruit trees/vines/shrubs from birds and possums. But will be other plantings, any lawn will be miniscule. Butterfly attracting, maybe a mulberry tree to feed the birds (and poop purple birdshit over all the cars in the neighborhood ) holes for lizards, maybe a nesting box or two.

No great native life—except bloody possums! The odd whip snake (what is called whip snake in Tassie, not real whip snakes) which will not be welcomed! No foxes in Tassie, thank goodness. I want chooks, half a dozen, can run around under the fruit trees, help keep grubs (codlin moth etc) under control. I will not spray any organochloro poisons, will spray mostly neem oil, maybe some sulphur dioxide on tomatoes. Not spraying copper either, better ways to control fungus.

. What we have achieved over such a relatively short time is truly incredible and inspiring. The scope and scale and commitment is wonderful to behold.. these are people who really care. And this work is being done entirely free of government support, with less than 35,000 supporters ....

Yep... worth checking out if you want to contribute but are not sure how.